Fifty Shades of Red

“Knowledge is indivisible. When people grow wise in one direction, they are sure to make it easier for themselves to grow wise in other directions as well. On the other hand, when they split up knowledge, concentrate on their own field, and scorn and ignore other fields, they grow less wise — even in their own field.” – Isaac Asimov

The maxims that comprise the bulk of this article are designed to educate men on the nature of women, as well as the nature of themselves in relation to women. Being a loose collection of maxims, the article is easy-to-read by merit of its broken down format. I’ve likewise adopted brevity here in the hope that the most prominent points will stick more easily.

The maxims listed are inclusive, but not exhaustive. As such, these maxims do not compromise the totality of wisdom available on this topic. There is far more. With time, I may add additional maxims or pen a follow-up article.

2.) The Maxims:

IM MAXIM #1: “The tougher the men around her, the softer she is. The softer the men around her, the tougher she is. The toughest woman is the fatherless woman, for the fatherless woman seeks a surrogate by whoring herself.” [See here for more.]

IM MAXIM #3: “Women’s love is admiration built upon respect. Women are drawn to men of experience and power. Man’s love is respect built upon desire. Men are drawn to women of innocence and vulnerability. When a woman no longer admires, and a man no longer sacrifices, love is lost. It is a delicate balance, for respect is lost when either fails in their capacity. Man sacrifices, woman admires, that is love.” [See here for more.]

IM MAXIM #5: “The feminine wants a guardian and the masculine wants to guard. The problem is, neither can happen without trust. The sexes have always found it difficult to trust one another, but courtesy of feminism, they have never trusted each other less.”

IM MAXIM #6: “There is an immutable animosity between the sexes that serves as the conduit for all distrust. This animosity flows from the inability of the sexes to reconcile their fundamentally opposed sexual strategies. For a man’s optimal sexual strategy to thrive, the woman’s must suffer. For a woman’s optimal sexual strategy to thrive, the man’s must suffer. Each sex is determined not to suffer, and so both inflict suffering on the other in a perverse determination not to suffer themselves; this is the battle of the sexes, this is reproductive war.”

IM MAXIM #7: “The sexes desire to trust one another, but they wish to actualise their sexual imperatives far more. As such, trust is predicated on the degree of one’s control far more than it is any sense of blind loyalty.”

IM MAXIM #8: “Women are followers, not leaders; they follow trends, status and power, not a sense of innate loyalty.”

IM MAXIM #9: “The average man is ignorant and misled. His mental construct of women is far greater than anything the typical woman aspires to. This is not his fault for his biology deceives him and society lies to him, as such the deck of deception is stacked. Nevertheless, the reality remains.”

IM MAXIM #10: “You conflate her beauty with good character. These things are distinct, but mesmerised by beauty, you think they are identical.”

IM MAXIM #11: “You have been lied to about the nature of women all your life, disregard what you think you know because it’s probably wrong. Ignore the top-down preaching that society espouses, reconstruct your understanding from the bottom-up.”

IM MAXIM #12: “Cultures have always had a preferred sex. In some eras, men are celebrated; in others, it is women. There is no equality in prosperous cultures, only a cooperation where one sex recognises the superiority of the other. To realise which culture you live in, ask yourself who it is more acceptable to criticise. The sex it is least acceptable to criticise is that culture’s preferred sex.”

IM MAXIM #14: “Conventional loyalty implies honour. Honour is a male abstraction. Female loyalty is predicated entirely on the belief you are powerful, we will call this opportunistic loyalty. Man can be loyal in the female sense (opportunistically) or he can be loyal in the truest sense of the word – sacrificially. In matters of men, women are capable only of the prior, the latter is reserved for her children.”

IM MAXIM #15: “Sacrificial loyalty is not predicated on the potency of one’s power, opportunistic loyalty is fixated on it.”

IM MAXIM #16: “Female loyalty is not loyalty in the truest sense of the word, for it is far too conditional to be considered such a thing. The conventional understanding of loyalty demands a bond beyond an enamour with power.”

IM MAXIM #18: “It is precisely how women love which vitiates their capacity for loyalty to that of bastardised half-loyalty. A loyalty dictated by hypergamy rather than honour. A Machiavellian self-serving loyalty, yes. A noble one, most definitely not; this is reality, accept it.”

IM MAXIM #19: “All past sacrifice is null and void if your continued association does not provide her with a tangible benefit. To simplify: if you cannot help her now, she does not care if you helped her before.” [See Briffault’s Law] Refer to Maxims #16-18.

IM MAXIM #20: “Your mother is the only woman who will love you for you, rather than your power. Corollary: if your mother was a heartless narcissist, you have never known and shall never know a woman’s least conditional love.”

IM MAXIM #21: “If you compare a potential love interest to your mother, your love interest will disappoint you. Corollary: unless your mother was a narcissist, in which case you will get exactly what you expect.”

IM MAXIM #23: “Women want the final product, but successful men value a woman who was there for the journey. Women detest risk, so they have the propensity to hold back ambitious men with their petulant insecurities. Should he become too powerful, she fears she will lose her monopoly over him. She sabotages him to secure him, for the crab bucket mentality is intrinsic to women.” Refer to Maxim #22.

IM MAXIM #24: “As her control increases, her attraction and respect decreases. As her control decreases, her attraction and respect increases. If a woman is with a submissive man trying to become dominant, she will utterly oppose him. She has accepted he is submissive and so she revels in the power her control gives her. If he becomes dominant, she loses the power and resources her monopoly granted her. And she will never forget his old ways, she will never really believe he is a worthy leader.”

IM MAXIM #25: “The optimised female sexual strategy compartmentalises the roles of men. We call this female sexual plurality. Women have a dual nature to control and be controlled, for their fluidity permits great perversity. With the dominant, she can satiate her masochism. With the submissive, she can satiate her sadism. In this way she indulges her lust for power with the submissive man, and her lust to feel feminine with the dominant.”

IM MAXIM #26: “If she is with a submissive man, she prioritises her happiness. If she is with a dominant man, she prioritises his. With the dominant man, making him happy makes her happy. The submissive man’s happiness has no such effect, so she deems it irrelevant.”

IM MAXIM #27: “Women will not go backwards in commitment, men will not go backwards sexually. Corollary: unless the man or woman in question has no better options, in which case they will, with misery.”

IM MAXIM #28: “Women bargain for control of a man’s commitment, men bargain for control of a woman’s body.”

IM MAXIM #29: “Work on the presumption that the women you date are promiscuous. Your inclination will be to assume her innocence, but you are wiser to assume her guilt.”

IM MAXIM #30: “It is not so much a question of if she is a whore, but rather, a question of if she is not.” Refer to Maxim #29.

IM MAXIM #31: “Prudence necessitates one requires evidence of womanly innocence rather than assuming the existence of such. The assumption that innocence is an intrinsic feminine quality is an almost universal tragedy that has cost many men a great deal.”

IM MAXIM #32: “A woman’s truth is whatever she needs it to be. If the abstract truth does not serve her psyche, a dissociative one will be manufactured in its place.” [See here for more.]

IM MAXIM #33: “Feminism didn’t make women something that they weren’t, patriarchy and religion did. Man’s governance made women better, not just for the sake of men, but likewise, for themselves. Feminism is female self-governance. Such self-governance has revealed the nature of women to lack a non-superficial civility. By removing the societal shaming mechanisms that nurture women to be noble, feminism has exposed the feral nature of women. Everything that is negative about the female disposition is thus doubly so under the fist of feminism.”

IM MAXIM #34: “Men must become powerful to be loved; women and children need only exist.”

IM MAXIM #35: “Men remember being boys. Man has a lucid perspective in comparing the diminished affection of his adulthood to the greater bounty of his childhood. Women do not experience such a significant loss of affection. As such, man is forced to realise he will never again be loved so profusely, for the boy gets his fill, but man loves the most to be loved the least. The profundity of maternal love is longed for, but forever gone. A girlfriend cannot provide that, and is loathe to do so should a weak man demand it. This is perhaps the bitterest of all the pills.”

IM MAXIM #36: “Marriage is for women and the lined pockets of divorce lawyers, not husbands.”

IM MAXIM #37: “Marriage is security for women at the expense of man’s freedom. Traditionally man was given certain powers to compensate him for the increased burden and loss of freedom. He no longer is.”

IM MAXIM #38: “Marriage is the only legal contract in existence that permits a person to violate contractual terms and then subsequently penalise the party who upheld said terms.”

IM MAXIM #39: “Woman, much unlike man, does not see marriage as a legal contract or responsibility. She sees it as security, and the celebration itself, the actualisation of a childhood fantasy.”

IM MAXIM #40: “Some believe marriage is necessary to properly raise children. In a bygone era, it was. Times have changed. Feminist legal politics have transmuted what was traditionally an asset into a liability.”

IM MAXIM #41: “Divorce destroys children. You can’t ruin your kids with divorce if you never get married to begin with.”

IM MAXIM #42: “Women want to get married because, in the majority of circumstances, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. For you, this is the opposite. Ultra high-net-worth women are perhaps the exception, that should reveal all it needs to.”

IM MAXIM #43: “Security and commitment is the female end-game. Marriage provides this. Marriage fulfils the feminine imperative by providing a woman her highest desire. The equivalent end-game for the male imperative is a harem of beautiful women.

IM MAXIM #44: “If you’re (ever) in an elite social class that necessitates political marriage, keep the bulk of your assets secure in a trust fund. This is your security. What isn’t technically yours cannot be taken from you.”

IM MAXIM #46: “Women weaponise sex, for it is their trump card, and often, their only card.”

IM MAXIM #47: “It is inextricably womanlike to control the attractive man with sex. When libido wins, she fucks for pleasure. When a lust for power wins, sex is rationed like a drug and used to condition a man with Pavlovian precision”

IM MAXIM #48: “When a woman manipulates a man she does not find attractive, she does so through feigned frigidity and sex appeal rather than through sexual act.”

IM MAXIM #49: “It is in a woman’s interest to give deliberately mixed signals. There is great power in even a potential for sex. As such, it is in woman’s interest to have men believe they have a chance. For as long as he believes this, she exercises power over him.”

IM MAXIM #50: “If you try to debate with someone whose mind prefers emotion to reason, you will engage in a grand exercise of futility that exhausts the patience. As such, do not argue with women. It is pointless. You cannot argue with feelings, you can only manipulate them.” [See here for more.]

3.) In Closing:

Some things may seem obvious, others, not so. The seeming obviousness of something is an incredibly subjective phenomenon, and is based primarily on your experience (or lack thereof.) As such, some things may click, others may not. I only ask that if something is not immediately obvious, that you re-read the maxim a couple of times to better consider it’s meaning. If you still don’t understand a point, feel free to ask in the comments.

I am a woman who ascribes to the philosophy espoused here at Illimitable Men. Because obviously you come to the playing field with a good understanding of social hierarchy and social relations, I was wondering if you might know of any websites that you would recommend a woman read (besides, of course, your own, which I am perusing at length at the moment)- that have similar maxims, instructions, theoretical frameworks, for females. There seems to be a dearth of such information here on the web.

There is huge breadth here, but then I also find things relevant to very specific circumstances. For example, #47 and #48 are relevant to a circumstance I have right now where I’ve cut off a former flame from my attention. She was using me for comfort and validation without any real reciprocation of attraction on her part. And now when I see her she’s very nearly seductive, but doesn’t let things actually escalate. It took me a while, but I now recognize this as the manipulation it is.

A few random thoughts:

IM MAXIM #25: “The optimised female sexual strategy compartmentalises the roles of men. We call this female sexual plurality. Women have a dual nature to control and be controlled, for their fluidity permits great perversity. With the dominant, she can satiate her masochism. With the submissive, she can satiate her sadism. In this way she indulges her lust for power with the submissive man, and her lust to feel feminine with the dominant.”

I’ve never heard this put in such a way before – sadism vs. masochism, power vs. femininity – but I think it’s spot on. I’ve been surprised before at how much women seem to need a sense of power over others, at least when they don’t feel as though someone has power over them.

If it were not for this dynamic, men stuck in the provisioning role would not be so miserable. It might be a bit lackluster, but not agonizing, if she simply lacked sexual passion for you. But it becomes agonizing because of how a woman will squeeze a provider man’s personality through a colander seemingly just for the satisfaction of being able to do so.

IM MAXIM #26: “If she is with a submissive man, she prioritises her happiness. If she is with a dominant man, she prioritises his. With the dominant man, making him happy makes her happy. The submissive man’s happiness has no such effect, so she deems it irrelevant.”

In a comment I wrote on The Rational Male:

“But women have different relationships with them. To women, betas are friends, helpers, co-workers, employees, servants; unless related by blood, they are practical beings only. There is no romance to them. They are useful, fun, maybe even someone to be a little affectionate toward so long as they remain useful, but they have no deeper self, no soul, no mystical thing to bind to.

Alphas are something else entirely. They are actually people – people drenched with desire, romance, spirit. Him, she can respect. In greater cases even worship. It matters little how well he performs objectively, so long as he does nothing to make her doubt her assessment of him as alpha. If he does perform, she admires and praises his performance….”

Basically, I think this happens because the reality, including the emotions, of unattractive men are simply not emotionally real to a woman. So long as he’s useful he’s tolerated, but she has no real empathy for him. An attractive man, however, has emotions that are deeply real, and therefore important, to her.

I bring this up in particular because I think a lack of understanding of this is central to many men’s relationship pain. They just don’t understand why she doesn’t care. They don’t understand how important attraction is for a woman to be able to connect with a man, how, without that and respect, she can never take him seriously.

One thing I question:

IM MAXIM #43: “Security and commitment is the female end-game. Marriage provides this. Marriage fulfils the feminine imperative by providing a woman her highest desire. The equivalent end-game for the male imperative is a harem of beautiful women.”

I think that security and commitment are desires that women have. But I really don’t see evidence that they are their highest desire. It’s usually women that instigate divorces after all, and stereotypically because they were simply bored, not excited by the relationship.

I think that the highest desire of woman is to experience strong emotions. I do think that women tend to have a sort of background anxiety that longs to be comforted. This can be by promises of provisioning and protection, but it can also be by a sense of being under the control of a dominant man. Or by the distractions of rollercoaster emotions. Or a sense of being high-status amongst her female peers. Women only reach out for the commitment ring when other avenues are closed to them.

On maxin 43: the female end game is to have access to male resources through the control of male emotions, she gains this control through manipulation of said male emotions. This is how women acquire security.

Her attraction and respect for the male is linked in that both are dependent on the level of control she possesses over the males emotions. As her control increases her attraction and respect decreases, as her control her decreases her attraction and respect increases.

When she is confidant of her control over the males emotions she assumes full entitlement to his resources, also respect and attraction turn to disdain and disgust. At this point she will actively start looking for more impressive males whether she is conscious of it or not. So in other words, once her source of security and commitment is assured her end game is realized and she is free to seek better options. This is the AF/BB dynamic as I have made sense of it. It is the human condition to always want more in terms of power and status. So yes, I agree that security and commitment is a womans end game.

In my experience the biggest shit tests often occur when she senses significant loss of control, which usually entails elaborate ultimatums, excessively dramatic appeals to emotion and venomously vindictive attacks. All meant to bait the male into reacting emotionally, which of course must not under any circumstances be engaged. The moment you entertain an argument with an emotional woman is the moment you lose and relinquish your power to her. Emotion is her domain, do not engage, treat it as a childs tantrum and simply dismiss.

I’ve been quite the “alpha” in my pre TRP enlightened past. It is however interesting to note that all many of my break ups occurred in mid february. I had a habit of slipping into “beta” behavior around christmas holidays, introducing girls to family. Its funny, I was not conscious of why but I sensed that after meeting my family they became more demanding and entitled, and I somehow knew that for her meeting my family was a validating confirmation of her growing emotional control over me. Also, it is interesting to note that when I sensed the change I took steps to regain my power, the resulting disturbing tantrum made me break up with most of them. Which also upholds the maxim that females refuse to move backwards in commitment, they will fight like rabid beasts to maintain their status assumed or not.

Nature is amoral, nature is truth itself and as such the truth is amoral. Nature is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Nature is the alpha and omega, it is true justice. Natures will, of which all are subject to, is final. Disobedience is not only an illusion, it is an impossibility. Nature is our amoral God. Study nature, it is the answer to everything.

What I get from this is that, yes, with respect to a particular man the end goal for a woman is emotional control/commitment. But that once achieved it’s no longer desired, making the whole thing cyclic.

In short, the end manifestation is serial monogamy, and commitment is just end phase of each cycle. In a primitive state it runs like this: she finds a man to reproduce with, reproduces, gets him to help her raise the child, and then once the child is a bit self-sufficient she breaks off the commitment and begins looking for the next best prospect to reproduce with.

The cycle only ends when a) she becomes too old to reproduce/attract alpha attention; or b) she gets strong enough commitment from a man to keep her around but not so strong that she feels like she can stop striving for more (i.e. a man who knows game), or c) if she becomes attached to a man that keeps on being her next best option. These aren’t mutually exclusive.

I don’t think women are really wired for longterm monogamy. You need to fiddle around with things a bit to make it work.

I think that the highest desire of woman is to experience strong emotions. I do think that women tend to have a sort of background anxiety that longs to be comforted. This can be by promises of provisioning and protection, but it can also be by a sense of being under the control of a dominant man. Or by the distractions of rollercoaster emotions. Or a sense of being high-status amongst her female peers. Women only reach out for the commitment ring when other avenues are closed to them.

I see where you’re coming from about the background anxiety, but without that anxiety fulfilled no “higher objective” can be achieved. It’s like saying human’s highest objective is to have fun, yes, sure, we are fun-seeking creatures – but we can’t be fun-seeking until we have a regular food supply secure. Women are the same. They do not engage in all the depraved shit until they have exploitable security in the form of a man. Now you can let her compartmentalise and take you for that fool, or you can be the alpha provider.

What I’m trying to get at with maxim #43 is specifically the feminine imperative to secure “security and commitment from a high-tier dominant man” – perhaps I should edit that in to make the point clearer.

As you rightfully point out, security and commitment from just any old man won’t do. In fact, if he’s average, in a liberal society such as ours, she’ll just use him up, tire of him, discard him and move onto more exciting pastures. No, it has to be the commitment/security of an alpha.

I think that’s part of it. My reply to PedanticFox just above is relevant here, but I think the central aspect of my argument is this:

Women aren’t innately concerned with finding a single man who can both be an alpha and a provider. Nor are they innately concerned with permanent monogamy. As men, we evaluate the circumstance and note that the women who are the most settled and happy are those paired in such a way, but it’s actually something they wouldn’t, left to themselves, actively pursue. They tend to pursue the best alpha genes they can, then lock him down to provide, then get bored of him after some years due to betaization (in a primal state, about when the child is becoming self-reliant), then begin looking for the best genes again. This is consistently the fantasy women have – of ‘taming’ the wild man, settling him down. They don’t relate the two, but there’s another fantasy that kicks in once this process is complete – the fantasy of breaking free of constraints and ‘finding yourself’ in some new, wildly passionate love. Romance novels are full of both storylines, and with reason.

I agree that a great solution to many relationship and women problems is to be the alpha provider. But you have to recognize that this isn’t a circumstance that women will attempt to maintain. It’s not their end state, it’s just a phase of a cycle. You need to keep on maintaining a sense of not being fully ‘tamed’ or tameable. You need to keep on being her best option. You will be constantly fighting the narrative she’s trying to play out, a narrative not of permanent devotion but of serial monogamy with a string of alphas. That’s why men have a burden of performance, why we need to learn (or have) game, why we need to hold the frame in the relationship.

Again, being the alpha provider may be one of the best end states for a man to aspire to. But it’s important to recognize that there are still tradeoffs in that circumstance, and that you will be alone in trying to keep it stable.

When a woman initiates divorce it is usually because she knows she will be able to take some of the security of the marriage with her. Whether it’s taking assets or leveraging the children as bargaining chips or branch swinging to a more dominant man( usually some combination of the three) you see how this works. Not all women see marriage as the ultimate, but that’s usually because they have such a surplus of beauty and the resultant attention that comes with it that they are confident in their stability. In cases such as this, only when their stability becomes threatened does one reasonably strong man’s (whether he be alpha or beta) commitment become the ultimate prize

Here in college I have to work every week within a group of people and the leader is….a girl. She is a bad leader (proof : I hate her because of how she leads) and has a deeply NEED for leading which is so strong it seems unhealthy. That’s what I question your maxim which says that women are not leaders….what do you think?

Ok so this maxim splits off in a few ways, but I’ll try to keep things simple.

She is the exception to the rule. Most women don’t want to lead because although the power is attractive, the responsibility repulses them. Women are herdlike (popularity and perception is important to them) being a leader is risky for a woman because if she fucks up – EVERYONE WILL HATE HER. A woman’s worst nightmare. This is probably a close #2 to “raped by the ugliest man on earth” for “worst nightmares women have.”

If you cannot deal with the responsibility of being a leader, you will be a bad leader. This is 99.9% of women (some bull dykes are quite good at it, they’re the .1%.) Women in general, will blame subordinates and be generally Machiavellian in scapegoating their workers/followers for their leadership fuck-ups instead of being the shoulders everyone else stands on.

To summarise: women want power, but not responsibility. Most women don’t want to lead because it’s risky and women are risk averse. Women who want to lead are in love with power, but are generally speaking, no good at wielding it, and no good at dealing with its consequences. So when they fuck up – EVERYONE suffers. I have spoken to many women about female bosses in my life. Most prefer men. They’ll read this and think I’m an asshole. Then they’ll remember the crappy female bosses they’ve had who were either tyrannical or didn’t discipline disruptive co-workers. And they’ll agree. Women aren’t very good at applying power, they either don’t apply enough of it or they become Hitler.

Like you said, she is a bad leader.

So your leader is a follower who wants to be a leader, but can’t lead shit.

Let me guess.

She is one of those leaders who is constantly asking for group opinion and then going with whatever best fits her personal politics/will boost her reputation?

At your age, especially in college, most the girls who “lead project groups” are doing that shit to try and become more popular/liked in the class. It’s girl game misfiring. Because they usually almost always fuck it up. And the fact they suck at leading makes you feel negatively about them. What compounds your disdain? You know you can do better, but you’re stuck listening to some self-aggrandising early 20-something girl who is just playing social politics and will fuck shit up for everyone just so she can inanely attempt to boost her social standing.

This girl of yours is probably a control freak/power hungry women trying to become popular. But by being too masculine in her method, whilst being feminine in her capability, she has alienated you (and probably others too.)

That should clear things up for you. Remember, nothing is binary, there is always grey, and there are always outliers.

Something else that could be worth mentioning is that I am in engineering. I have been to 2 engineering schools and I’ve met 5-6 girls that were that eager to be the leaders. So the field I’m studying in may be another factor.

One common thing that I’ve observed is that in case of failure or really ANYTHING going wrong (like half of the group doesn’t show up for the meeting), they play the victim card “they are mean to ME” like it’s a personal attack. In the scenario of people not attending the meeting, it’s “I work so hard to make sure everything going well and they try TO FUCK EVERYTHING UP”. They get mad or begin to cry. Now, I know they do work hard. But I find it disturbing that they complain about it, to me a leader should be the one who is able to shoulder the most. And then they cry, which is embarrassing. When was the last time you saw a leader crying?

Funny thing is, most of the time, those female leaders send the e-mail for the meeting on sunday evening and send another one 40 min before the meeting changing the time. And if you manage to make it to the meeting but even a little bit late, they will look at you as if you had committed a murder or something.

Here is why I hate them :

they don’t listen to what I say. We needed a volunteer during the last session and I said “I’ll do it”. She literally took the stuff needed to get the job done from my hands without saying anything or even acknowledging my existence (it was like I was there holding her sword for her, waiting for her to need it). She did so in front of the whole group and I felt humiliated,
they yell all the time

when I show them the work I’ve done, they throw it away saying it’s shit. I ask them to explain what’s wrong so that I can correct it and they answer something along the line of “you are a useless piece of crap and you can’t do anything right, I will do it now STFU and go away” (they don’t say that but that’s what they say means), then they complain they have to do everything by themselves. So OK I get it my work may not have been great but I was willing to do my part anyway. Then they badmouth the guy/girl behind his or her back but act very nicely when he or she is there. I hate that kind of backstabbing.

when me or someone else is not motivated by doing the job, instead of talking with the person to understand what’s going on and to find a solution (for example : “you yell at everyone all the time, when I do something it’s always crap and you don’t even explain to me why, you treat me like a piece of shit and you act as if you don’t need me so I don’t see why I should invest myself in the project : you don’t need me and I can’t do anything right? Well then go do it yourself”), they don’t say anything, get mad and begin to hate the person and to ruin their reputation behind their back.

really I’m always met with hate and anger. It’s the same with everyone and when someone else calls them on their bullshit they usually go full victim mode “OKAY! I see, I’m not a great leader! [throw the papers on the floor], so why don’t you handle it yourself?” but it’s always followed by females siding with her and begging her (she got the attention she wanted) to stay.

Anyway. Do you have any suggestions about taking the lead despite having this kind of monster in your group? (they will throw a tantrum and make up a public trial, cry, get mad if I try) And about handling them when they are leading?

Anyway. Do you have any suggestions about taking the lead despite having this kind of monster in your group? (they will throw a tantrum and make up a public trial, cry, get mad if I try) And about handling them when they are leading?

Be unreactive to emotional outbursts (don’t be pulled into the theatrics,) treat them as immature and childish if pushed for comment. If you comment/attack you’re seen as mean, so your hands are tied, but what you DON’T DO has power/denies her power. Being the immovable rock gets you respect. People will start to look to you if they see you are in always control of yourself.

Focus on the work and focus on building healthy relationships with all the people who aren’t her/in bed with her. That way if a disinformation campaign is launched against you, enough of your peers will like you not to be taken in by it. Ignore the leader girl completely but befriend everyone else, it will fuck her up and she’ll start showing more respect. The more interest you show and the more apologetic or overtly angry you are, the more you harm your reputation. Do these things, and control will shift to your hands.

Men seize control by holding frame and being dismissive (anti-emotional), women seize control by being dramatic, feeding off everybody’s emotions and controlling the narrative.

I love your posts, man, but at times they don’t read as well as they should due to incorrect sentence structure and punctuation errors. They are well thought out and constructed, but full of structural/punctuation errors of which I’d like to assist with. In written English, punctuation is vital to disambiguate the meaning of sentences.
This sentence in the post above, for example, has ‘in’ in the incorrect place: “People will start to look to you if they see you are in always control of yourself.” It should read: People will start to look to you if they see you are always in control of yourself. This is just one small example, but I have read all of your posts and have found many such mistakes. Your site is way too important to have such ambiguity, and I’d be happy to help out in this regard.
Thanks for all of your great work for us brothers in the Manosphere…
Jim

Greetings IMAN.
To my surprise, two others have already mentioned maxim 43.
Its vagueness also stood out to me as it needs clarification.

“Security and commitment” is put on equal terms with “a harem of beautiful women.”
This seems flawed, because women don’t desire commitment from any old chap. The actual equivalent is a harem of women. Beautiful harem corresponds to high value male security and commitment.

Futhermore, getting a beatiful harem is onerous compared to getting some schlub to commit. It is as easy as a walk in the park, a matter of choice. The closest equivalent are plates who do not get commitment.

“When a woman no longer admires, and a man no longer sacrifices, love is lost. It is a delicate balance, for respect is lost when either fails in their capacity. Man sacrifices, woman admires, that is love.”

Sacrifice? To me, sacrifice is a BP aspect. Doesn’t TRP teaches how a man should not sacrifice himself for a woman?(no commitment – spin plates, don’t buy her stuff, put yourself first..). It seems like a dangerous maxim to me.

Sacrifice = giving her comfort/assuaging intrinsic feminine insecurity, providing financially, allocating time to her that realistically could be spent on more fruitful or interesting activities among other things.

You do these things because you value the relationship, but each action within itself benefits her more than it does you. You do it for her because you’re in love and you want the relationship to last. That is sacrifice. Women make sacrifices for a relationship too, but it’s different, as the final responsibility ultimately falls on man, their sacrifice is lesser.

Women need your sacrifice to have a healthy relationship with you. Even if you are an asshole, you can’t ignore her as much as you’d like, or she’ll implode. And if she implodes, you’ll have to deal with her emotional shit (damage control those histrionics,) or it’s over. You sacrifice by dealing with her women shit, her women problems, her moaning about her girl politics and advising her on things you don’t really give two fucks about. That is paternal love, and it is sacrificial.

IMO, long-term relationships always necessitate more sacrifice from the man, because man is not free to be who he wants to be with the woman, but who he has to be to hold everything together. Man is the rock of the relationship, and as such, he makes sacrifices for it should he wish to maintain it. A man who is single is not the same man he is when he is in a committed relationship. A single alpha male is a hunter. A committed alpha male is a guardian. (Refer to Maxim #5) You can still be dominant and be a guardian if you know what you’re doing, but you’re guarding and provisioning when hunting is more fun and less work. So you are sacrificing.

Committed is the keyword here. If you are not really in a proper relationship with a woman, but you are just jumping from short-term relationship to short-term relationship, enjoying sex and leading her along until time runs out, then when she FINALLY figures out you’re not in it for the long haul she’ll be gone. Why? Because you won’t sacrifice for her. Such single-minded selfishness does not allow relationships to flourish. That’s why those relationships do not last. And that is not love. That wasn’t love, it was lust. It was lust that could turn into love, but the sacrifices weren’t made and so that path wasn’t treaded.

I don’t know what you think of when you hear the word sacrifice, but men who won’t sacrifice have a big stone-wall around them and never really let the woman get close. Such men never go beyond plate spinning or short-term relationships. This isn’t a value judgement either, it is simply how things go. If men want to do that, fine, but then such men are not qualified to speak about long-term relationships and the sacrifices they require, nor will they understand such things in a healthy context.

Mutually enjoyed LTRs do not flourish on pure alpha dominance. You need to give comfort. And in that, there is sacrifice on your part. And yes, there is a danger that should you become too accustomed to giving comfort that you will lose the dominant frame from which such comfort should be given. That’s why guys struggle with long-term relationships. They don’t want to lose their power to the altruism that woman requires. They want to feel tough, not weak, but you cannot be the impenetrable man who does not bond emotionally and have a lasting relationship with a woman.

Few women are worth such things, but ALL women want this. Much like how lowly valueless men want to fuck the most beautiful women. Just because they want it doesn’t mean they’re worthy enough to get it. The same goes for the relationship needs of women. That’s a value judgement for you to make – how you allocate your commitment and who to.

Well, I have not been with a woman since I took trp so my view of sacrifice is still a beta one : quit going to the gym because you want to be with her, quit seeing your friends, quit doing what you enjoy etc…basically sacrificing your goalsm passion and your life to not lose the pussy. But I think I get what you say : it’s not about sacrificing yourself but about compromising from time to time.

” You didn’t have love. You had lust”

But in your hierarchy of love post, someone asked :

“So essentially, if one wishes to experience the closest thing to unconditional maternal love from a woman, he must inspire maximal lust in her.”

Never stop going to the gym and doing the things that make you dominant. You need that. If she tries to stop you doing these things, you need to get rid of her. She’s a saboteur. That’s not sacrifice as I had it in mind, that’s being a self-destructive idiot.

It’s like this: don’t think you can treat women like garbage, never compromise and have a fulfilling relationship. Because you can’t. There are certain things like working out you will REFUSE to compromise on. And if she doesn’t like the fact you workout for whatever strange reason that is, you get rid of her. Sacrifice does not mean allowing a woman to change fundamentally who you are, or becoming weak and lazy.

But unlike the single guy who just nexts women instead of compromising over transgressions, in a relationship there are things you will have to compromise on for it to work. Relationships have a security component. Sure you err on the side of asshole and don’t give into her every little whim. You do not become castrated, but you will compromise on minor things from a position of leadership.

No leader gets everything they want whenever they want it and remains leader. Because leaders have to take care of their followers. Sometimes a leader has to make a sacrifice for the greater good. That is the position a man takes in a healthy relationship with a woman, the man takes a strong lead bearing the woman in mind, and the woman puts her trust in him and follows his lead.

The key is being able to do it from a place of power and paternal altruism, rather than a frame of feeling weak and giving into her manipulations. Essentially, all relationships are a battle of masculine and feminine, and it is the man’s responsibility to make sure the feminine doesn’t overwhelm him, whilst at the same time not completely rejecting the needs of the feminine.

If a man can do that, his relationship is golden. Most men cannot do this, and most women are not worth trying to perform such a balancing act for, so this is rare. But say you wanted your own big powerful family, it is something you would need to learn. Patrice O’Neal called it “bitch management.”

But in your hierarchy of love post, someone asked :
“So essentially, if one wishes to experience the closest thing to unconditional maternal love from a woman, he must inspire maximal lust in her.”
And your answered :
“In short: yes.”

This is simultaneously true. But love and relationships are related, not identical. A woman can love you because you fuck with her head, but if you make no sacrifices then a relationship won’t last. No matter how you cut it, a relationship is going to require sacrifice, if you are semantically allergic to the word, say compromise instead. Effectively, it’s the same thing.

As an aside, most women do not love their husbands as much as the affair they could never have. If you’re in a relationship, you’re losing – you’ll never be “her greatest love” but do it right and she will love/respect you. You’ll have something bigger – a family.

You have to ask yourself what is more important to you, being the man a woman could never have and could never get over, and thus having her highest love, or having a healthy relationship with a woman that acts as the bedrock of family?

If you don’t give a shit about having a family, you don’t really need a relationship with a woman. Starting a family is the only reason to put yourself through the hassle of dealing with women rather than tossing them aside when they become too annoying.

Think of a group leader, be it supervisor at work or some other context, allowing somebody to have time off on short notice for legit reasons and willing to fill in their spot working with everybody else. In contrast of taking a stance of being a supervisor or boss means never doing anything on the labor level. Even for one shift.
Or a boss that from time to time pays to have a catered BBQ lunch if things have been going well and the labor force has been working well.
It can actually fortify your leadership status by making a sacrifice. It takes knowing when to do it, and knowing how much. And also to cut loose those that may loose perspective about why it happens.

want to say, regarding maxim #27 I was going to say that it might be more accurate to say women won’t go back financially. But then I started thinking that a woman won’t go back on either one.
Only a woman who has never had much commitment will be someone who won’t go back financially but will take no commitment. The increase in finance came at a time with no commitment.
But if the commitment came with an increase in finance, a bigger jump in finance won’t be taken without some commitment.

I know you’re a stickler for spelling and such; wanted to point out one small thing, not to criticize but rather to help with the editing process. Maxim #35 uses “loathed” in place of the proper “loathe”. Excellent article, and feel free to delete this comment if you’d like, after updating the article. Think of this as a note in the margin, nothing more. I check this page religiously for new content and am never disappointed.

Great spot there. It is a strange word in verb form. The grammar checker thinks your correction is wrong, but I know better than to trust software when it comes to grammar. As a testament to the fact I am far from perfect, I shan’t be removing your comment. Thank you for your assistance – and being a reader.

Glad I could help. I printed this article off to save and reference in the future. Question for you about this one:

“IM MAXIM #20: “Your mother is the only woman who will love you for you, rather than your power.”

How do you suppose this principle applies to daughters? I have a 7 month old daughter, that I love with all my heart, and I hate the idea that her love for me will not be as unconditional as I’ve always assumed that it will be.

I am of the opinion that the child-parent bond is stronger than the husband-wife bond, but naturally, you’ll always love your child more than they love you. Love flows downwards. You’re the peak of the mountain. If you got weak, she’d still love you because you’re her father, but, she would hide you from people because she couldn’t be proud of you. Partners are replaceable, parents aren’t. Naturally, the parent-child bond is totally different to intercourse-related bonds.

Sometimes I think this is my first life as a women. There’s not much here I can relate to. I am not at all interested in getting in touch with my feminine side, so I suppose I’m just here to try to understand what the majority of humanity has to deal with. Sounds tedious…

MGTOW sounds like a reasonable option when you think about the sheer amount of effort required to juggle between keeping frame and compromising for her, between being rational in the midst of a relationship versus letting your emotions getting hold of you completely.

With #37 it is still pretty much the case in the middle eastern countries. Feminism is creeping there but slowly and on a micro/families level but not on a macro/government level.

With #38 it is not, again, the case in those countries. Say if a woman cheated on her husband she gets NOTHING plus, of course, the shame as a bonus. Now if she was caught in the act, and her husband killed her or/and him (the idiot she was caught with), where I am from, he would get the maximum of 6 months in jail and treated like a hero.

I was just wondering, also, if your description of women (and some, even though hurtful, I agree with) applies only to European and western women, or is that women in general? For example the loyalty maxims 16, 17 and 18.

One more question, what’s you thoughts on spiritual/devoted Christian women?

I stumbled upon this site purely by coincidence and what a find it is. I have been broken hearted for a long time and reading this just made perfect sense. All the things she did and said to me I could never understand and now I do. I have been illuminated and I am grateful. Thank you for this, I am a young man of 22 and this will undoubtedly serve me for the rest of my life. I’m going to print this out and read it daily until I absorb it into my very bones. Thank you again

I was married for 11 years. I left my wife because of a million reasons but her actions confounded and mystified me for many, many months.

I stumbled upon (in the app StumpleUpon) this article and I am forever changed. She was the definition of the classic emotional weapon and I was too young and naive to be equipped for defense. Thanks to this article and the subsequent deluge of information I have received after reading it, I will never be so stupid again. Luckily she wasn’t worth a damn as a person so I only have the 11 years wasted – not a great woman as well. There really aren’t many of them out there. The limited few are married to high powered and extreme alphas. I am a very successful and alpha man myself but the pickings are ever thinning thanks to mass media and feminism. I am also the son of an incredible mother who became a lesbian at 34 after deeming men not worth her time. She is now a VP at a massive company and battles high powered men all day only to have grace and kindness at home. This post helped me realize that I am intensely lucky as a son, but that doomed me as a man. You do not get both in this world unless your character is stronger than steel. I love my mother with inconceivable heaps but it is a hard blow to take that I will forever be deeply disappointed by the actions of grown up women.

It’s amazing to see how much of this is actually some kind of true and fits in some kind of shape or form on the different women one has been engaging with through life.
I must admit that I’m (maybe conditioned) still having difficulty accepting these as universal truths for all women, as I can find examples where women have acted in contrary to these universal truths. However, as said, they give great insight I think.

IM MAXIM # 1: “The tougher the man around her, the softer she is. The softer the men around her, the tougher she is. The toughest woman is the woman fatherless, for the fatherless woman seeks a surrogate by whoring herself. ”

I’ve seen women near dark triad men come to behave like little girls, when they are usually arrogant, adult women. Extreme scenes women +25 like girls 8 years.

#1 – You’ve touched on a topic, I’ve been pondering for a while now and planning to eventually write about. I call it the Yin and Yang between masculinity and femininity. As one grows stronger, so does the other in the opposite direction. As one become weaker, likewise so does the other.

#10 – I must admit I have fallen victim to this with a recent woman. There’s no chance of anything romantic developing because I am married and will not risk that, but I have indeed equated her beauty to equal her personality. Thanks for this maxim. It’s a great reminder that we must always be on guard.

#19 – Right on the bullseye. I could go ad nausea of instances that I have personally experienced this effect. The past means nothing to women.

This is such an incredible sum of information. Having been blind sided myself it is amazing, even as a successful alpha, to suddenly realize so much of what you have seen is just pure biology. Someone mentioned the maxim about the past meaning nothing to women. That is not completely true. The past is weaponized by women, just as is intimacy and your desire for them. The past will be brought up in an instant if it involves some sort of advantage to them, but they will not only forget, but in fact negate the very existence of, the sacrifices or kindness offered to them in the past. Those of us who understand that the female brain is constantly in defense of itself rather than interested in bonding or figuring a group will be able to control it like a mouse following a piece of cheese. They do not love you. They are not loyal to you. They will shed you like a snake sheds it’s skin at the very first indication that you are weak. I know many of you are saying “but my wife hasn’t left me and I’ve shown weakness” – you still don’t understand. She has left you. In her mind. She’s gone. With some stronger man. In her mind. She’s young and beautiful and desired. In her mind. Solipsism allows for INTENSE SELF DELUSION that is akin to how prisoners survive long stints in isolation without killing themselves. They build fantastical realities in their mind until that proverbial door opens, and then when it does, they will run like greyhounds out of the gate toward anything that resembles their fantasy.

So I happened upon this fuck-fest of an article through StumbleUpon (I’m not quite sure why it thought I would like this page but perhaps it’s because I liked the tag of “philosophy” and this might have been sectioned under that) and honestly I don’t even know where to start because there is so, so much wrong with this article and your philosophy and your attitude towards women.

First of all, this is an INCREDIBLY cis-and-heteronormative point of view, because where do queer women fall in your philosophy? Trans women? Trans men? AFAB non-binaries? Gay men? This is so strictly cis-het centered and you’re leaving out a good fucking chunk of the population by restricting it so cis-conforming men and women, which already tells me this is a majorly flawed philosophy with very little ground.

Secondly, let’s get to your maxims, here. Literally zero of them apply to me (who isn’t even a woman, but we’ll get to that later) or any of my friends; there’s literally nothing you have right here, which leaves me wondering if you’ve ever actually spoken with a woman in your entire life, because this article points to no. I would spend time countering every single maxim you wrote here if I didn’t have other things to do and a probably word limit in the comments.

So let’s start here: “Women’s love is admiration built upon respect. Women are drawn to men of experience and power. Man’s love is respect built upon desire. Men are drawn to women of innocence and vulnerability. When a woman no longer admires, and a man no longer sacrifices, love is lost. It is a delicate balance, for respect is lost when either fails in their capacity. Man sacrifices, woman admires, that is love.” Okay, so, why do you think women “respect” men of experience and power? There’s plenty despicable men out there who have experience and far too much power (ex. Donald Trump), but I have zero respect or admiration for him or many men like him. Experience and power mean shit to me. I look at the men I admire–a wide variety of people ranging from a handful of my friendly co-workers, to Patrick Stump, to Huang Zitao, to Chance the Rapper, to Kim Namjoon, to my father, to my two genius twin cousins who got full-ride scholarships to the University of Washington–and I like them not for their experience (which many of them don’t have…) or their power (which my co-workers and cousins DEFINITELY don’t have), but rather their humanity, their sensitivity, their kindness, their thoughtfulness, how much of a general joy it is to be around them and part of their social sphere. I reiterate: experience and power means shit. Fuck your power. I don’t respect your power; I respect your personality, I respect your morality, I respect your sensitivity, that’s what I respect. As for men being attracted to women of innocence and vulnerability, I can’t speak for men–but it does leave me wondering about those women aren’t there that aren’t vulnerable, and DEFINITELY aren’t innocent, and how exactly they managed to snag themselves a husband, such as Tasha McCauley, a robotics CEO who got herself the perfect trophy husband in the form of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, a self-proclaimed feminist and world-renowned actor.

Moving on: “Women love children how men love women.” Do I…. even need to say how disturbing and non-sensical this is? Are you inferring that all women are pedophiles? Are you inferring that we love our children for their riveting conversational skills and sense of style? Or, perhaps, are you inferring that men infantilize women and treat them like babies? That men think women are intellectually inferior and must be constantly taught and chastised? Because all of these chains of thought are incredibly disturbing and make me want to keep both women and children very, very far away from you. Listen up: Do NOT liken parental love to romantic love. Those are two, very, very different things, and if you confuse those to that can lead to incredibly dangerous and toxic results.

“You conflate her beauty with good character. These things are distinct, but mesmerised by beauty, you think they are identical.” Okay, this is just–men being stupid, I guess. If I trusted all good-looking men I’d be dead by now. Get your minds out of the gutter and treat women like people, not dolls. (Also, you misspelled “mesmerized”. Might want to fix that later.)

“Women aren’t loyal to you, they’re loyal to your power.” Once again, countered by what I said in reply to the first maxim. I don’t care about your power, unless it threatens me, in which case I want very far away from you. Get off your high horse.

“Your mother is the only woman who will love you for you, rather than your power. Corollary: if your mother was a heartless narcissist, you have never known and shall never know a woman’s least conditional love.” So in other words: women are heartless harpies that aren’t capable of love? Got it. Dude, if got something to say, just say it, don’t beat around the bush. But anyways, this is by far the saddest maxim in this whole godforsaken post. I don’t doubt that /you/ will never know a woman’s least conditional love, because you are evidently a misogynistic asshole MRA, which no one would ever love anyways, but if you’re a decent guy–of /course/ you could know a woman’s least conditional love. If you’re a decent guy–which you are not–you could easily get a girl to fall in love with you, a girl that will happily hold your hand and give you massages and support you when you most need it, a girl that love you for /you/, because you’re someone that’s worth loving. I already have a least conditional love for some boys that I will never meet, like the aforementioned Huang Zitao, because he’s one of the sweetest boys I’ve ever seen and I could see myself falling in love with him, even if by some weird twist of events I was the breadwinner of the family. And that’s just romantic love; there’s already so many boys in my life that have my least conditional love, platonically–my cousins, my close guy friends that I go to concerts and comedy shows with. TLDR; women are so full of love, they’re brimming with it. If you find you’re not getting any, then it’s probably because you don’t deserve it. You gotta earn it, first. It’s a reciprocal thing.

“Men remember being boys. Man has a lucid perspective in comparing the diminished affection of his adulthood to the greater bounty of his childhood. Women do not experience such a significant loss of affection. As such, man is forced to realise he will never again be loved so profusely, for the boy gets his fill, but man loves the most to be loved the least. The profundity of maternal love is longed for, but forever gone. A girlfriend cannot provide that, and is loathe to do so should a weak man demand it. This is perhaps the bitterest of all the pills.” Oh, jeez. Woe is me. Once again; do not confuse parental love with romantic. That’s…. really gross. Like, maybe you have mommy issues or some sort of Oedipus complex but you really need to stop this. A mother loves her son because that’s her duty as a mother; if she gives any less than her 100% than she isn’t fit to be a mother. She birthed you, so she nourishes you, and ensures that you’ll be able to survive in this world without her. Clearly that didn’t quite work out for you. Listen: WOMEN AREN’T YOUR MOMMY. And don’t expect them to love you like one. They’re gonna love you like a regular fucking person, like the way men love women, and if that love’s too tough for you then maybe you aren’t mature enough to be in a relationship yet.

“Marriage is security for women at the expense of man’s freedom. Traditionally man was given certain powers to compensate him for the increased burden and loss of freedom. He no longer is.” ///// “Marriage is the only legal contract in existence that permits a person to violate contractual terms and then subsequently penalise the party who upheld said terms.” ///// “Woman, much unlike man, does not see marriage as a legal contract or responsibility. She sees it as security, and the celebration itself, the actualisation of a childhood fantasy.” Uhhhhhh, so if marriage is so terrible, then–don’t get married? You do realize that men are the one that propose, right? That it’s a mutual agreement? That you sign the papers and say your vows, too? Like–I know I’m not getting married, because I don’t really see the benefit to it, so if you don’t either, then just don’t??? Get married??? And could you perhaps enlighten me with what you mean by “the expense of a man’s freedom”–freedom to what, fuck anything on two legs? Freedom to, I don’t know, hit on whoever you want? You do realize women are held to the same standard, too, like. We can’t go around fucking the hot bartender either (unless y’all are in an open relationship, but that’s another conversation). If you see it as a “loss of freedom” then maybe you shouldn’t get married yet; you clearly aren’y ready to give up the dozens of beautiful women that are lined up to sleep with you. Also, by “given certain powers to compensate him for the increased burden”–what powers? The power to rape and beat his wife without penalty? Because that’s still happening if you’re so goddamn interested. And “increased burden”–what increased burden? Financial burden? If that’s a problem, talk to your wife about it? She can get a job, too, it’s sooooooo much work. If you’re talking about emotional burden–“ugh, I have to deal with this gross emotion-fest for the rest of my life”–then, once again, maybe she’s not the one for you. You have a fucking choice, dude. Don’t bitch and whine about it when you’re the one that agreed to it. (Also, again: you misspelled “penalize” and “actualization”.)

“Work on the presumption that the women you date are promiscuous. Your inclination will be to assume her innocence, but you are wiser to assume her guilt.” Er–why is she “guilty” if she’s had sex before? There’s nothing guilty about it? What–do you think she was saving yourself for you? Or like, would be abstinent until marriage? No offense, but I doubt men hold themselves to the same standard. If women went around judging men on whether or not they are virgins and claimed all “promiscuous” men are “guilty” and held them in disdain, then believe me, no men would ever have any girlfriends, ever. She’ll probably be better at sex if she’s slept around a little, anyways; your creepy affinity for innocent, vulnerable virgins is really pedophilic and has a thousand warning bells going off in my head. Definitely gotta keep young girls away from you.

“Security and commitment is the female end-game. Marriage provides this. Marriage fulfils the feminine imperative by providing a woman her highest desire. The equivalent end-game for the male imperative is a harem of beautiful women.” Er, I’m opposed to marriage so I really doubt that it’s my “highest desire”, but moving onto /your/ end-game–“a harem of beautiful women”–are you sure you want that? I thought women were heartless harpies out for your money and not capable of love? If you want somewhere tight to stick your dick, maybe consider investing in a fleshlight, it’ll save you the emotional distress.

“Women weaponise sex, for it is their trump card, and often, their only card.” Well, yeah, clearly, because men like you obviously only see value in women in what’s between their legs. What else are we gonna take away? Our riveting conversational skills? Our hilarious sense of humor? Our -$0.22 to your dollar? When men like you only like women for their vaginas and maybe their tits, often sex is the only fucking card you see.

“If you try to debate with someone whose mind prefers emotion to reason, you will engage in a grand exercise of futility that exhausts the patience. As such, do not argue with women. It is pointless. You cannot argue with feelings, you can only manipulate them.” Ah, so here we are, the part where you admit to manipulating women’s emotions. Great. Glad you could be upfront here, at the very least. Jesus Christ, dude–just because you can’t win an argument with a chick doesn’t mean you gotta fuck her over. Just admit she ain’t the one for you and move on.

TLDR; Your conclusions are based on nothing but male pettiness and make no sense. They’re not even close to correct and you probably have such bad experiences with women because you’re an asshole to them. “Women are manipulative”–you mean, “women are mean to me when I objectify them and call them manipulative”. Whoop-di-fucking-doo, son, you get what you give. Don’t dish it if you can’t take it.

Seeing as you’ve built quite the following with this disgusting outlook on life and have quite the blog, I doubt this will magically change your mind, but I /do/ hope you realize how laughable you sound to women out there that aren’t, y’know, living in the eighteenth century. This is an incredibly negative and pessimistic look at life and women–lighten up dude. Women are great and brimming with love. It’s why I’m fucking bi. They’re kind and beautiful and intelligent, and I’ve been lucky enough to see the best side of them. Maybe if you turn your life around you will too.

Her response makes me cringe. While reading through her babble, it really reaffirms the narcissistic viewpoint women always take up. Everything is “I, me, my experience…” While sometimes this may be true, it’s like women use their own experience to speak for the group. While she may be an outlier (which I doubt), she fails to see outside of herself and say, “this may not apply to me, but this is surely accurate for the women today.”
Another disqualifier is all those faux terms people like to use to confuse people about their sexual preference. There are two sexes male and female. Internal biology drives external behavior. This develops feminine traits and masculine traits. All this social construct bullshit is nonsense. Go to any society that hasn’t had contact with our western society and look at the roles women have. They have always been care givers and nurturers. It’s even the case with animals. Why is this so across the board? The society is different. So how come? The internal biology is the same, so the external behaviors manifests in a way that is more conducive to the survival of that society.
So this post in particular has used some of woman’s feral, external actions, as a means to help men understand how and why they generally do the things they do. It’s largely accurate and may not apply to a small minority of women. Look at the comments for confirmation. Most men have experienced this. These modern social justice warriors are the only warriors in history, whose fight, when won, doesn’t give them territory or spoils. The battle only serves to combat your insecurities. When you win you feel good. It’s all about you. Another narcissistic reason when most of these warriors tend to be women.

A man is not born, he is made. But, women don’t care about the process, they want the finished product. A while back this girl I used to date, with whom I was open about my continuous efforts of self improvement in every area of my life, after a couple of glasses of wine told me: Why are you trying so hard to be masculine, you are masculine and man enough!

Just like men, women project their worldview onto us. Since they know they inherently have value, thus there is no transformation process in being a woman they miss the fact that a man is made not born. In my case the girl missed the fact that the masculine man she liked in me wasn’t always there, that man was the result of a long personal growth.

Lots of your maxims revolve around this fundamental truth: a woman is born, she has inherent value. There’s no transformation, thus she expects everything around her to just “be”, in order for her to maximize her hypergamy.

IM MAXIM # 14: “Conventional loyalty Implies honor. Honour is a male abstraction. Female loyalty is predicated entirely on the belief you are powerful, we will call this opportunistic loyalty. Man can be loyal in the female sense (opportunistically) or he can be loyal in the truest sense of the word – sacrificially. In matters of men, women are capable only of the prior, the Latter is reserved for her children. ”

Have cases of women who abandon their children because of a broken psychopath she wants to fix, being an exception, the rare case when a woman love a partner sacrificially near unconditional.

The hamster her should think, “if I give you unconditional love may he protect me.” Paradoxically assimilating with opportunistic love.